weekly and maybe hourly ups and downs, we hear it at the end. >> i thought i heard in your story, dana, that kelly is determined to sort of make it not obvious that he is managing the president, but i think we all know that if you are close to the president or working under him, you're always managing the president. >> all right. more on this drama as the day goes out. see you tomorrow. wolf blitzer starts right now. hello, i'm wolf blitzer. it's 1:0 p.m. here in washington, 7:300 p.m. in davos switzerland. 8:00 p.m. in jerusalem or where you're watching around the world. bombshell. donald trump tried to have special counsel robert mueller fired. why his plan didn't work. plus, a growing divide between he and his white house
chief of staff john kelly. angering members of both parties with the daca plan. a source confirms to cnn that back in june president trump ordered his special counsel robert mueller to be fired. the only reason he wasn't, the white house counsel don mcgahn, threatened to resign. today president trump denies this bombshell reporting. here's what he said before leaving davos to come back to washington. >> did you seek to fire robert mueller? >> fake news, folks, fake news. >> mr. trump. >> let's go to our justice correspondent jessica schneider who is working the story for us. jessica, take us behind the scenes of the white house last june. >> well, wolf, we know there was tension inside the white house that threatened to boil over in june when the president called for special counsel robert mueller's ouster.
at that point mueller had only been appointed a few weeks prior. so a source tells us it was white house counsel don mcgahn who refused to order the justice department to fire mueller, but the threat to actually resign, mcgahn didn't make it directly to the president. mcgahn refused the president's call because we know he disagreed with president trump's reasoning. so the president had expressed concern about three possible conflicts of interest. first, the special counsel had actually been a member of the trump golf club in sterling, virginia, but then we know that robert mueller left the club after a dispute over membership fees. so the president had concerns about that. second, the president believed that it was a conflict of interest that robert mueller was a partner at the washington law firm that represents his son-in-law jared kushner on a top adviser. and third, the fact that mueller had actually been interviewed for head of the fbi, director of the fbi, one day before actually being named special counsel. the president also believed that
was a conflict. so this desire to fire robert mueller came from the president in june. but for months after that, the president and his staff denied it, as did his lawyers. well, now, though, there's been a bit of a change in tune from the president's lawyers. consider this statement from white house lawyer john dowd. that was back on august 8 when he was asked if a firing was possible. john dowd said this. he said, that's never been on the table, never. it's a manifestation of the media. but just last night after these reports came out, white house lawyer ty cobb, he deferred questions, saying that, we decline to comment out of respect for the office of the special counsel and its process. so notably white house lawyers last night did not explicitly slap down these reports, but of course, wolf, the president still calling it fake news before he left switzerland. wolf? >> yes, he did, jessica. thanks very much. let's quicking ta inly take a l
what was happening last june when president trump ordered his white house counsel to fire robert mueller. as you know, mueller was appointed in may after the president fired the former fbi director, james comey. here's what went on in the month that followed. on june 7th, comey releases a written statement about his interactions with the president. that statement alleges that in january of last year, the president asked comey for loyalty and to stop investigating his friend and former national security adviser michael flynn. one day later, comey publicly testifies before congress about these allegations detailing how uncomfortable these conversations with the president made him. and about a week later, on june 15th, mueller requests interviews with top intelligence officials, including the director of national intelligence dan coates of the national security agency. according to reports, the president had previously asked both of these men to intervene in the russia investigation. and on this very same day the
president logs on to twitter and blasts the special counsel investigation as, quote, a witch hunt. today we now know that while all of this was happening, behind the scenes the president was ordering his white house counsel to fire mueller, something white house staff and the president himself have repeatedly denied. listen to this. >> does the president commit to not firing robert mueller? >> the president has not even discussed that. the president is not discussing firing bob mueller. we are cooperating with -- he has not even discussed firing bob mueller. >> that's not what i'm asking. >> hold on, i'm not the president's lawyer here, but as his counselor, he is not discussing that. >> i haven't given it any thought. i've been reading about it from you people saying, i'm going to dismiss him. i'm not dismissing him, i want him to get on with his task, but i also want the senate and the
house to come out with their findings. >> let's get to the panel. laura coates, cnn director david chalian, editor of "the fix" and carrie cordero. david, the president and his staff were denying what was true, that he had ordered his staff to fire bob mueller and his attorney saying, i will revine it you r resign if you do that. >> were they denying what he wanted or did he not say that? she kept relying on the word "discussing." what does "discussing" mean.
perhaps she didn't consider order to go his white house counsel to have the special counsel fired a discussion. perhaps she was having some word play there. clearly there was a misleading of the american public here as to what was going on. in your timeline, wolf, in june you remember the president's good friend chris ruddy of newsmax, he gave julia woodriff an interview. he basically was reading this story word for word back in june explaining what the president's thinking was and what the justification in his mind was for thinking mueller had to go. >> they rejected that comment. they said it wasn't true that he knew what he was talking about when he actually did know what he was talking about. walk us through the idea of firing the special counsel. he could have gone to the justice department of the attorney general or the attorney general, for that matter, and say, fire him. >> he could. the normal way things are
supposed to work is the president is supposed to work through the white house counsel's office and communicating with the justice department. certainly this would have been an extraordinary circumstance. the deputy attorney general, rob rosenste rosenstein, who is the acting attorney general for purposes of the russia investigation, really is the person who holds the most control over the appointment or firing of the special counsel. so really, even if the white house counsel's office would have gone to the justice department, he would have had to have convinced rod rosenstein to fire director mueller. mr. rosenstein is not doing that. many observers think mr. rosenstein would have to resign and somebody else assume his super supervisory staff to actually do that. >> rosenstein might have quit,
too, not only don mcgahn which could have been what happened during watergate when this thing unfolded and the president backed off. andy sca mrkscarmucci said this matter since he never fired bob mueller. >> looking from the outside in, the president's actions have been giving a lot of reasons for that investigation to be happening. i've counted six top fbi and/or justice officials that the president has considered firing, or in the case of james comey, the fbi director, and sally yates, the top justice department official, actually fired. which to go back to david's point raises the question for the first six months of his presidency, did he genuinely believe that the fbi was out to get him politically, meaning to
stop this from happening, or was he trying to cover something up? >> laura, the special counsel robert mueller presumably knew all of this conversation back in june, long before the "new york times," the "washington post," cnn we were all reporting it last night. how does this fit in, this order to the white house counsel to go ahead and fire mueller? how does this fit in to this investigation of possible obstruction of justice. >> i think his end game is not obstruction to figure out whether or not the president of the united states was trying to undermine their justice endeavor or trying to undermine their trying to find out some truth. that's not his end game. but as far as the contextual clues, you have another indication that this person was trying to undermine the investigation. now, why you were trying to do that is the bigger question for mueller. what it is you don't want me to see is my greater venture here,
but in terms of there being a contextual clue, it was there, i'm sure. and for robert mueller, this news wasn't news to him. does he actually have a resonating value in this administration? so i think he was befuddleed d that. >> the interesting point on obstruction is that in order to have obstruction, there is a pattern of activity. and the reporting that he was considering or that he ordered the firing of mueller who had only been in the position for about a month, i think, casts doubt on the purported reasons for firing director comey. in other words, the president has come up with a reason that they have given as pretext for firing director comey. the fact that now they were going to fire mueller as well
indicates that what he was really trying to do was get at the investigation, and it wasn't for all these other pretextual reasons. >> what was not in the published pre text of why he fired comey was on camera and in an interview with lester holt is where he said it. >> it does not immunize you for prosecution for that charge. if you endeavor to do that, that can carry as much weight as the overall accomplishment like he did with comey if it turns out that was for obstruction. everybody stand by. there is more coming up. it is very intriguing why this bombshell report is emerging right now. there is a lot more coming up, including the trump administration putting up its promised plan for immigration reform, but it seems a few democrats, even some
republicans, are not happy with it. our phil mattingly is standing by. he has a report. growing tensions between the president and chief of staff john kelly. and a strong negativity by nikki haley to the rumors she and the president are having an affair. we'll have more on that. the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. i'm back. aleve pm for a better am.
with its historical ance records...test ...you could learn you're from ireland... ...donegal, ireland... ...and your ancestor was a fisherman. with blue eyes. just like you. begin your journey at ancestry.com searching for answers may feel overwhelming. so start your search with our teams of specialists at cancer treatment centers of america. the evolution of cancer care is here. learn more at cancercenter.com/experts i cannot imagine managing my diabetes without my dexcom. this is the dexcom g5 mobile continuous glucose
monitoring system. a small, wearable sensor measures your glucose every 5 minutes and sends the data to a dexcom receiver. dexcom helps lower a1c and improves quality of life. if you're over 65 and you have diabetes, you should have a dexcom. if you get a dexcom, you're going to be very glad that you did. visit dexcomnow.com to learn more. you're going to be very glad that you did. if yor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough, it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious.
pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. this condition has not been reported with entyvio. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach. pssst. what? i switched to geico and got more. more savings on car insurance? a-ha. and an award-winning mobile app. that is more. oh, there's more. mobile id cards, emergency roadside service... more technology.
i can even add a new driver... ...right from her phone! geico. expect great savings and a whole lot more. breaking news. hillary clinton is now facing accusations that she harbored an accused sexual harasser during her 2008 presidential campaign. the "new york times" reports that hillary clinton stepped in to save the job of her then-faith adviser, a man by the name of burns strider. he was accused of sexually harassing a female subordinate. strider was sent to counseling. he was allowed to keep his job
while a woman was reassigned. strider hasn't responded to cnn's request for a statement, but we did get this from the law firm that represented hillary clinton in the 2008 campaign saying, quote, to ensure a safe working environment, the campaign had a process to address complaints of misconductor harassment. when matters arose, they were reviewed in accordance with these policies, and appropriate action was taken. this complaint was no exception, closed quote. "the times" reports that burns strider then joined a support gro group for the 2016 campaign but was later fired due to another sexual harassment report.
it's hard to believe hillary clinton protected this guy. >> patty doyle, the campaign manager at the time, a contributor to cnn, recommended the firing. hillary clinton at the time said, no, i don't want to take that course of action, i want him to stay on. it seems to me it's pretty clear hillary clinton is going to have to address this at some point. in the broader context, wolf, of this moment that we are in in our culture, and pairing that with the line of attack against hillary clinton from donald trump directly and his allies during the campaign that she enabled bill clinton's behavior -- you'll recall when donald trump showed up with all the woman accusers of bill clinton at that presidential debate in st. louis -- this is a larger question about bill and hillary clinton's role in the democratic party this year, an election year, in this current me too environment. i think the story raise s a lof questio -- lot of questions and i think
hillary clinton is going to have to answer them. >> these are very, very solid reporters. the political fallout from this, what do you think? >> obviously hillary clinton's presidential campaign is over and this one was over in 2008. but exactly right. i see two fallout points from that, and to pick up on one david made, if hillary clinton wanted to fashion herself as any kind of spokeswoman for the democratic movement in the trump era, and particularly for women in the trump era, she's going to have a very difficult time doing that unless there is a clear explanation for this. the second one is, as we continue to see who got tied up and who knew what and when and whether it was other top democrats, there could be potential fallout for anyone who wants to run in 2020. i don't know who might be connected or who was involved, but that certainly is something a number of reporters are going to dig through because this is such a big story.
anyone who might be remotely connected to what could be a toxic story might be in for a rude awakening. >> this is not the first time that hillary clinton just in recent history since the harvey weinstein scandal has had to address claims whether she's enabled either through the acceptance of money from him through campaign contributions or otherwise. what you're seeing here and why this story is so timely legally speaking is just think what happened this week with larry nassar and now the idea that usa gymnastics and leaders at michigan university are now being tasked whether they had people in place to address this complaint. it is public opinion to say the fault lied with one person. if there was a system in place to continue or to be pervasive, they will be taken to task as well. she has to address this given
this climate, particularly in the legal context. >> different climate today than 2008, no doubt about that. everybody stand by. there's more news. we're following president trump's framework on immigration that's coming from the left and the right. among other things, it includes a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million daca recipients, the d.r.e.a.m.ers, about 700,000. also some hard-line conservatives, they are calling this amnesty. democrats are upset, on the other hand, over what the trump administration would get in return, including money for a border wall with mexico and major cuts to legal immigration into the united states. let's go tower congressional correspondent phil mattingly. he's joining us from capitol hill. first of all, walk us through the president's immigration proposal. >> wolf, this is very important because you get a sense of why people are upset in their various places right now and whether or not this actually has a future on capitol hill. the short answer to that is is it's very unlikely right now
just given who it has upset but it will play a role in the negotiations going forward. as you noted, for the democrats, for people who want d.r.e.a.m.ers to have a path to citizenship, that would exist. it wouldn't just be the 698,000 individuals who have daca protection as it currently stands, it would be the entire universe of individuals who would be eligible for that. the white house estimates that would be about 1.8 million people. look at what conservatives would want out of this proposal. $20 billion in a trust fund for the wall, plus another $5 billion for enforcement. that's another big plus the white house wants, something they have clearly emphasized going forward. i think you noted the key points when you get in the weeds of this plan. family migration, limiting that just to spouses and children. that is a major reduction in legal immigration. then you also have the ending of the diversity lottery visa program. those are two pieces right there that are crucial from the white
house perspective that they said they want no matter what but will be problematic if they want to move anything forward on a bipartisan basis, wolf. >> phil mattingly, let's see what happens in the coming days if this is just an opening round in negotiations and if they can reach some sort of agreement. the roughly 1 million green cards given up by the united states each year allowing legal status in the united states could be reduced by at least half. according to experts that's part of the president's plan to reduce legal immigration into the united states while giving so-called d.r.e.a.m.ers a clear path to citizenship, as the president said the other day after 10 or 12 years here in the united states. walk us through the political battle that is about to unfold, because at stake also is a government shutdown in the coming days. >> right. it's hard to see who is happy with this deal announced by the white house because it certainly has more critics than it has fans at the moment. you talked about how the democrats are enraged not only over the wall funding issue,
which, as you know, chuck schumer had as part of the negotiations last week trying to avoid the shutdown, but really over this issue of chain migration, family-based migration limited to just the nuclear family. that is something that activists and progressives on the pro-immigration reform movement are very, very upset about. i think it will be a hard time to get democratic support structured the way it is. on the republican side, with breitbart blaring headlines calling donald trump amnesty don. if it can get 60 votes in the senate, wolf, i don't see how it can cobble together a majority in the house. >> the president, with this latest proposal, seems to have gone further, which angers people on the right, than the earlier proposal of the 700,000 d.r.e.a.m.ers to stay in the united states legally and eventually have a pathway to citizenship. now it's 1 .8 million, almost
three times as much. that was a surprise to everybody when that came out yesterday. >> it's like the president went to the polls on either side of the immigration debate, and nobody is happy with it. there are more people who find things to dislike in this bill than like it. i think because he put out two such extreme proposals, it's going to be very difficult to get to the center of a compromise. why would you support something that you literally hate more that's in the bill than you like what's in the bill? >> listen to the president give an interview to cnbc and he was asked about daca, the d.r.e.a.m.er program. listen to this. >> nobody wants to take care of daca more than myself and the republican party. we want to do what's right and we're going to do what's right and we're going to solve the daca problem. and i don't think the democrats would want to pull another shutdown, but we'll get it solved. if we need a little more time, we'll take a little more time. i want to get the problem solved
correctly. >> and more recently, he
tweeted this: daca has been made increasingly difficult by the fact that cryin' chuck schumer took such a beatdown that he's unable to act on immigration. this is a complicated issue. they've got less than two weeks if it's part of the shutdown negotiations to solve it. >> and good luck, but president trump did give light to this saying he was amnesty don. one of the sanctuary cities they have talking about reducing crime and associating that with the daca program in many ways. he's trying to say i'm still tough on crime and i'm still tough on illegal immigration to prove that you're in line with the ice agents and whatnot. so i think they're doing this pr campaign, on the one hand having
this very controversial daca proposal. on the other hand saying i'm still true on my ideas that i don't like sanctuary cities, i'm not for illegal immigration. i'm going to crack down on the crime that i assume is associated with it. >> i could see a compromise emerge in the senate where you have a lot of democrats who want a compromise, a bunch of republicans. the lindsey graham/dick durbin talks that have been going on. the question is, if it were to pass, get more than 60 votes in the senate, would it even come up for a vote in the house of representatives? >> that's a good question. the reason i think you could see it compromised in the senate is because he kind of said, we'll take that as some important guidance from the other end of pennsylvania avenue but we're going to keep working in the way we're working in the senate, so i don't think they were taking it wholesale despite the fact the white house said take it or leave it, basically. you're right. paul ryan has a decision to make here. is he going to employ the hasterk rule if you have a majority to vote on it or not? if he plans to do this with the
majority of the majority, this current bill, i do not see how house republicans who are more concerned about being challenged on the right of the primary over this specific issue. >> there was compensation reform and when it went to the house of representatives, nothing. there is there is a lot of work to be done. the only way it could come up for a vote is if the president works with the base saying, you got to do this, you got to do this. people on capitol hill have plenty to say about that blockbuster report of president trump trying to fire robert mueller. we're going to capitol hill when we come back. how do you chase what you love
with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis? do what i did. ask your doctor about humira. it's proven to help relieve pain and protect joints from further irreversible damage in many adults. humira works by targeting and helping to block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to ra symptoms. humira has been clinically studied for over 20 years. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis.
serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. ready for a new chapter? talk to your rheumatologist about humira. this is humira at work.
we know life can be hectic. that's why, at xfinity, we've been working hard to simplify your experiences with us. now, with instant text and email updates, you'll always be up to date. you can easily add premium channels, so you don't miss your favorite show. and with just a single word, find all the answers you're looking for - because getting what you need should be simple, fast, and easy. download the xfinity my account app or go online today.
capitol hill is reacting this hour to that bombshell new reporting that president trump tried to fire special counsel robert mueller last summer, something democrats and republicans have repeatedly said would be a red line. let's go tower senior congressional correspondent mono -- manu raja. >> they are trying to remove political pressure from the white house. they are competing bills in the senate that have not moved but there are conversations ongoing, including by senator cory booker who is part of an effort to revive these bills. he's been on the phone all morning trying to get support. he believes there will be support in the wake of these new reports. i just caught up with cory booker. i asked him about this legislation and i asked him about these democratic calls for impeachment. how should congress react now
that there are these reports that the president tried to fire his special counsel last year? >> i think there was a very pragmatic reason to put forward legislation to try to check the president's power and potentially authoritarian tendencies to order the removal of the special counsel. it went from a pragmatic and important idea to what i now believe is a moral imperative. >> should democrats be talking about impeachment at this point? is it premature? >> clearly with the president, if you look at what's going on with just the objective fact pattern, whether it's the firing of mueller, whether it's the people in and around his senior circle that have met with russians, russian agents who have been indicted for various behaviors, clearly there is smoke around the substance that would support impeachment. but we should not -- at least i as the senator of new jersey
will play a controversial role. i want to see the evidence that comes out, i want to see the facts. >> a democratic senator here not ruling out the idea that eventually this could lead to his impeachment, of course that would require republican support, too. the bill that he's been pushing, wolf, i had a chance to talk to a republican senator chuck grassley who chairs the judicial senate committee told me early this morning that he is, quote, seriously surely open to considering those bipartisan bills provided that they are reconciled first, provided they don't breach any constitutional concerns. he is not ruling out the idea of moving these in his committee, and wolf, grassley also says that the president should not fire robert mueller. he said, quote, heavens, no, he shouldn't fire robert mueller. and he also said that the president should let mueller do his job, let that investigation happen.
it shows you even some republ republicans are concerned about the talk of the president moving down this road and firing robert mueller. he would get backlash if he did that, wolf. >> huge backlash. thank you from capitol hill. frustration is mounting in the west wing of the white house. the president seems to be deeply irritated with his white house chief of staff. is another shake-up possible? that's next. i'd be freaking out. we are the tv doctors of america. together with cigna reminding you to go, know, and take control of your health. schedule your annual check-up today.
reporter kaitlyn collins. she's joining us right now. kaitlyn, a lot of us notice that general kelly at the last minute was pulled from the trip to davos. >> that's right, wolf, and we're having increasing reports of tension between our freewheeling president and his very structured chief of staff, and while that's no surprise, it's certainly significant and tensions really came to a head wednesday night before the president left for switzerland when john kelly was briefing reporters in his office on upcoming immigration moves from the administration and the president strode in, started taking questions from reporters and really upended the entire thing. and then afterwards one source close to the white house tells me and my colleagues here at cnn that the president put john kelly in a box. now, the president has increasingly felt like john kelly is is trying to undermine him, that he feels like he doesn't respect him, and the president upending that briefing was what one source described as a warning shot to kelly because he wanted to remind him, wolf, who is boss here. because he feels like john kelly
is increasingly acting like he is protecting the country from the president, which is a stunning attitude for the chief of staff to have. it's important to keep in mind here that this relationship isn't just because it's john kelly and the president. it's any time the president and his chief of staff, who is there to help manage him, control things, keep the west wing in check, is someone that the president is increasingly having so much friction with. >> very ver, very awkward situa. there is another stunning moment we're learning about nikki haley, ambassador to the united nations, clearly rising star on team trump. she is angry. she is on the record denying rumors of an affair with the president. listen to what she said. >> it is absolutely not true. it is highly offensive. and it's disgusting. this isn't something that just happened as a cabinet member. i saw this as a legislator, i saw this when i was governor, i see it now.
people see lies for what it is. do i like it? no. is it right? no. is it going to slow me down? not at all. any time this has happened, it only makes me fight harder. it only makes me work harder. and i do it for the sake of other women that are behind me. >> very powerful statement. you know, it's interesting, kaitl kaitlyn. give us the background why she felt it was so important to speak out so strongly on this issue. >> yeah, certainly a stunning accusation that the ambassador is having an affair with the president of the united states. and the reason this rumor is being talked about, her denial actually drew a lot of attention to this rumor, but it comes from michael wolff, the author of that new tell-all book "fire and fury" that has a lot of things right about the west wing and a lot of things wrong about the west wing, and in it he doesn't state that nikki haley and the president are having an affair, but he alludes to it, and separately in an interview he said, that's what i was talking
about. in the book he says she spent a lot of time with the president on air force i one on one, but nikki haley said she was only on air force i once, and when she was on there, there was several other people around, too. if you're going to make an accusation like this, you need to have the evidence to back it up. nikki haley clearly denying this, but it goes to show what a whirlwind circle. president trump addressing his widely criticized retweets of anti-muslim videos last year. >> i'm in the united states. i didn't read much about it. perhaps it was a big story in britain, perhaps it was a big story in the u.k. in the united states it wasn't a big story. >> it was a big story here in the united states. we're going to get the reaction to this latest interview. the president speaking out. we'll go live to the world economic forum in switzerland.
i promise, to have and to hold, from this day forward through sickness and in health, till death do us part selectquote can help you keep your promise. with life insurance starting at under $1 a day but you promised daddy. come on. selectquote helped michael, 41, keep his promise, by finding him a $500,000 policy
for under $26 per month. and found venessa, 37, a $750,00 policy for just $22 per month. since 1985, we've helped millions of families by finding them affordable coverage by impartially shopping highly rated insurers, offering over 70 policies. dad, don't be late, you promise? you promise? i promise. keep your promise.
the energy conscious whopeople among usle? say small actions can add up to something... humongous. a little thing here. a little thing there. starts to feel like a badge maybe millions can wear. who are all these caretakers, advocates too? turns out, it's californians it's me and it's you. don't stop now, it's easy to add to the routine. join energy upgrade california and do your thing.
despite all the controversies here at home, president trump pushed ahead with his america first, the stock market as well as taking a familiar jab at the news media. >> had the opposing party to me won, some of you whom backed, the stock market is up 50%. rather than that, i think the stock market would have been
down close to 50%. it wasn't until i became a politician that i realized how nasty, how mean, how vicious and how fake the press can be, as the cameras start going off in the back. but overall, i mean, the bottom line -- somebody said well, they couldn't have been that bad because here we are. >> cameras clearly did not go off at the back. chief white house correspondent for the white house in davos. how was he received there? >> reporter: they got the answer here, the president came in and touted his economic record, talking about the tax cuts he got passed end of last year and deregulation. all that have will sound good, obviously, to a very business-friendly crowd here in davos. a couple of things about the comments you just played, wolf. the president did just make those comments about how he
feels like he's the victim of fake news media. it was interesting to note when he made that remark in the audience, i was in the room, there were boos and hisses when he said that. that comment was not warmly received by everyone in the crowd. though, it was interesting to note that klaus schwab seemed to back up the president's comments before he started speaking, he said the president had essentially been a victim of biased interpretations and all but used the term fake news. that also was met with boos and hisses. he's the founder of the world economic forum. those were controversial remarks. all in all, wolf, he was greeted pretty warmly here in davos. >> also in davos, the british broadcaster, piers morgan, previously of cnn, pressed the president repeatedly on the issue of those very divisive tweets that the president had retweeted from the very small minority, right-wing british nationalist party, britain
first. and it outraged the prime minister, so many others in britain, indeed here in the united states, and around the world. listen to how piers had to repeatedly question the president and press and press and press to get sort of an apology. listen to this. >> i do just want to get one thing out of you. >> go ahead. >> given the amount of do you regret those retweets and in hindsight wish you hadn't done it? >> it is done because i am a big believer in fighting radical islamic terror. this was a depiction of radical islamic terror. >> they were unverified videotapes. at least one of them was not what it seem ed. >> they are but i didn't do it. i didn't go out -- i did a retweet. it was a big story where you are, but it was not a big story where i am. >> i get it. this is airing in britain. i want them to get to the real you. >> i'll tell you, the real me is somebody that loves britain,
loves the uk. i love scotland. i wish one of the biggest problems i have in winning, i won't be able to get back there so often. i would love to go there. as you know, before this happened, i would be there a lot. very special people and a very special place. so, i don't want to cause any difficulty for your country. that, i can tell you. >> can i get an apology out of you just for the retweets? i think it would go a long way. >> here is what's fair. if you're telling me that the horrible people, horrible racist people, i don't know anything about that. >> you disinvolve yourself? >> i know nothing about these people. >> thank you, mr. president. >> thank you. >> it means a lot to people in britain. >> okay. >> jim, so those comments going to satisfy folks in the uk, indeed, around the world, who were understandably outraged that the president would give
publicity to his 40-plus million followers on twitter to those outrageous tweets? >> reporter: well, wolf, for all the president's cries and complaints about fake news he essentially acknowledged in that interview with piers morgan that he was retweeting things he did not know were fully about. he did not know who britain first was when he retweeted those videos. that's one thing. wolf, my sense of it is during this trip to davos, the president was doing a lot of fence mending, answering about those anti-muslim videos he retweeted and was also asked earlier today about his remarks about african countries, people coming from african countries and the vulgar slur he used earlier this year. on and on the president had to dodge his past behavior and comments. moving forward it's a big question whether or not people fully will, you know, consider what he has said now and let all
of that be water under the bridge. my sense of it, wolf, is that there's still a lot of deep skepticism about the president's leadership on the world stage. he may have addressed some of that while he was in davos, but not all of it, wolf. >> jim acosta, thank you very much. lots more news. stay with us. cnn will be right back.
hi, there. i'm brooke baldwin. you're watching cnn. here we go. after days of stunning news erupting out of this russia investigation, we end the week with really the biggest bombshell of them all. a source says president trump tried to fire the man leading this entire case, special counsel robert mueller. and the only reason the president didn't go through with it, according to the source, is because white house counsel don